|
|
Just upgraded my Macbook to 3GB of RAM
|
|
|
|
Senior User
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Atlanta
Status:
Offline
|
|
And it's a heck of a lot faster now.
For $90 (got the OWC 3GB kit), this is a very worthwhile upgrade.
highly recommended, for anyone that still has 1GB or less.
|
2.16 Ghz Core 2 Macbook, 3GB Ram, 120 GB
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status:
Offline
|
|
Newegg has the same for $60 ($40 for 2GB and $20 for 1GB).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: NY²
Status:
Offline
|
|
It's well worth the money to get your MacBook to its maximum amount of memory, and it's such a simple installation, there isn't a reason not to do it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jul 2007
Status:
Offline
|
|
It's 75 on OWC with free shipping, not to rain on the OP's parade.
3GB makes the MacBook a lean mean computing machine.
CoolMacDude you running leopard or tiger?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Junior Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Switzerland
Status:
Offline
|
|
3 GB .... your Macbook must be blisteringly fast now... .... enjoy... me planning to do the same when...
|
Regards, Ankur
-----------------------------------
switching from windows (via a Macbook) right after Steve's keynote on MWSF Jan 15 '08...!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Sep 2007
Status:
Offline
|
|
you will however loose video performance due to the lose of duel channel with the integrated video ram
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Brussels
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Ant1-Hero
you will however loose video performance due to the lose of duel channel with the integrated video ram
Is that true?
If yes, then the solution would be to have 2 identical memory sim ?
|
"Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jul 2007
Status:
Offline
|
|
The solution I have seen is to simply go to 4GB. You regain dual channel but can only utilize 3GB.
Although, from the tests I have seen it is barely worth it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Las Vegas, NV, USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Ant1-Hero
you will however loose video performance due to the lose of duel channel with the integrated video ram
Why would you LOSE video performance due to the LOSS of DUAL channel RAM?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by chabig
Why would you LOSE video performance due to the LOSS of DUAL channel RAM?
The GPU uses a portion of main memory as your video memory, and video memory bandwidth can have a significant effect on graphics performance. Note that the performance being discussed is games and similar 3D apps, not playing/editing video.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
Isn't that "lost" performance compared to the (unachievable) equivalent of paired RAM? I mean, compared to 2GB of RAM, 3GB is better, and while you may not get the video performance you would with matched (theoretical) 1.5GB sticks, you'll still get better performance than with only 2GB of RAM. Or am I missing something?
|
Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by ghporter
Isn't that "lost" performance compared to the (unachievable) equivalent of paired RAM? I mean, compared to 2GB of RAM, 3GB is better, and while you may not get the video performance you would with matched (theoretical) 1.5GB sticks, you'll still get better performance than with only 2GB of RAM. Or am I missing something?
Graphics performance (framerate in games) is better with 2x1GB than 2+1GB with GMA950/X3100. Overall system performance is probably better with 2+1GB than 2x1GB.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior User
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Atlanta
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Christopera
It's 75 on OWC with free shipping, not to rain on the OP's parade.
3GB makes the MacBook a lean mean computing machine.
CoolMacDude you running leopard or tiger?
It looks like they lowered the price $10 since I ordered it (was 85), and I don't see any option for free shipping. The lowest is $4.50 for UPS ground.
And I'm still running Tiger here, but will be upgrading soon.
|
2.16 Ghz Core 2 Macbook, 3GB Ram, 120 GB
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior User
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Atlanta
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Ant1-Hero
you will however loose video performance due to the lose of duel channel with the integrated video ram
This is not correct. Please see this page.
OWC conducted extensive tests on this and found no reduction of any measurable significance.
I think this is a rumor someone started without much evidence and a lot of people just repeated it with very little basis.
|
2.16 Ghz Core 2 Macbook, 3GB Ram, 120 GB
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior User
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Atlanta
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by mduell
Graphics performance (framerate in games) is better with 2x1GB than 2+1GB with GMA950/X3100. Overall system performance is probably better with 2+1GB than 2x1GB.
Again, this is a myth and is not factual. See above link.
In addition I conducted my own test of the Halo timedemo and actually got better frame rates at 3GB.
The integrated graphics on the Macbook is so abysmal for games anyway that the huge inadequacies of the graphics processor will completely mask any perceptible quality differences due to minor configuration issues like memory pairing.
I am aware that there is a basis for this opinion based on hardware architecture, but in terms of real world performance metrics, I have not seen ANY evidence that graphics performance is perceptibly lower with 3GB.
|
2.16 Ghz Core 2 Macbook, 3GB Ram, 120 GB
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Aug 2006
Status:
Offline
|
|
those links are really interesting and will be of interest to my friend who has a macbook..
its evidence the OSX wants as much RAM as possible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by coolmacdude
This is not correct. Please see this page.
OWC conducted extensive tests on this and found no reduction of any measurable significance.
I think this is a rumor someone started without much evidence and a lot of people just repeated it with very little basis.
Originally Posted by coolmacdude
Again, this is a myth and is not factual. See above link.
In addition I conducted my own test of the Halo timedemo and actually got better frame rates at 3GB.
The integrated graphics on the Macbook is so abysmal for games anyway that the huge inadequacies of the graphics processor will completely mask any perceptible quality differences due to minor configuration issues like memory pairing.
I am aware that there is a basis for this opinion based on hardware architecture, but in terms of real world performance metrics, I have not seen ANY evidence that graphics performance is perceptibly lower with 3GB.
The one game benchmark that OWC ran shows exactly what I stated: Better graphics performance with matched memory sizes than larger unmatched memory sizes. The difference depends on the game because some are more sensitive to memory bandwidth than others. Quake 3 is a good example of a game that is sensitive to memory bandwidth:
(M) is equal sized modules, (U) is unequal sized modules
With X3100 I would expect the difference to become even more dramatic, since the GPU is faster so games are more likely to become VRAM-bound, but I can't find any benchmarks (everyone knows better so they don't even bother?).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior User
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Atlanta
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by mduell
The one game benchmark that OWC ran shows exactly what I stated:
How? The only game benchmark they did was Halo, which showed 14.xx FPS for both matched and unmatched.
Originally Posted by mduell
Better graphics performance with matched memory sizes than larger unmatched memory sizes. The difference depends on the game because some are more sensitive to memory bandwidth than others. Quake 3 is a good example of a game that is sensitive to memory bandwidth:
That is interesting, and this is the first evidence I have seen of this. However Quake 3 is a very old game, and almost all newer games are going to be limited by the graphics hardware rather than the memory, to the extent that you will see no difference.
Originally Posted by mduell
With X3100 I would expect the difference to become even more dramatic, since the GPU is faster so games are more likely to become VRAM-bound, but I can't find any benchmarks (everyone knows better so they don't even bother?).
I would doubt this, since the X3100 does not improve 3D gaming performance very much. MacBook 2.2GHz versus others
(
Last edited by coolmacdude; Dec 12, 2007 at 10:50 PM.
)
|
2.16 Ghz Core 2 Macbook, 3GB Ram, 120 GB
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by coolmacdude
How? The one benchmark they did was Halo, which showed 14.xx FPS for both matched and unmatched.
All of the matched results (with the exception of the starved 2x256MB model) are above 14, all of the unmatched results are below 14; it doesn't get much easier than that. With the 2x256MB result excluded, you can show that there's a ~99.9% probability with 95% confidence (z-score = 3) that matched is faster than unmatched; if you include the 2x256MB result it drops to ~93% probability with 95% confidence (z-score = 1.5).
Originally Posted by coolmacdude
That is interesting, and this is the first evidence I have seen of this. However Quake 3 is a very old game, and almost all newer games are going to be limited by the graphics hardware rather than the memory, to the extent that you will see no difference.
Some of the newer games are still limited by VRAM speed.
Originally Posted by coolmacdude
The benchmarks that didn't change are the proof of what I'm saying; they're bound by the VRAM bandwidth, which didn't change. The benchmarks that are about twice as fast show that some of the benchmarks are GPU bound, which was improved.
(
Last edited by mduell; Dec 12, 2007 at 11:02 PM.
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior User
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Atlanta
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by mduell
All of the matched results (with the exception of the starved 2x256MB model) are above 14, all of the unmatched results are below 14; it doesn't get much easier than that.
Um... no that was only for the older system. I'm talking about the newer model. And besides, as I mentioned earlier, the differences on ALL the systems were so small that they are obviously not even perceivable.
Originally Posted by mduell
With the 2x256MB result excluded, you can show that there's a ~99.9% probability with 95% confidence (z-score = 3) that matched is faster than unmatched; if you include the 2x256MB result it drops to ~93% probability with 95% confidence (z-score = 1.5).
:sigh: Please read what I wrote above and in previous posts. Say I am playing Halo with either configuration, am I going to notice a difference? The answer is no.
Originally Posted by mduell
The benchmarks that didn't change are the proof of what I'm saying; they're bound by the VRAM bandwidth, which didn't change. The benchmarks that are about twice as fast show that some of the benchmarks are GPU bound, which was improved.
While this may be the case, I still think for most games, there will not be a noticeable difference just because of unmatched memory. I have tested other games besides Halo and they are all faster for me.
|
2.16 Ghz Core 2 Macbook, 3GB Ram, 120 GB
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Vancouver
Status:
Offline
|
|
Newegg.com - Transcend 2GB 200-Pin DDR2 SO-DIMM DDR2 667 (PC2 5300) Notebook Memory - Retail
I think I'm going to pull the trigger on 2 x 2GB for my early 2007 Macbook; I know I'll only end up getting an extra 1GB out of it (I'm at 2 x 1GB now) but such is life.
Update: I received my Transcend 2GB memory upgrade and after installing both SO-DIMMs, System Profiler shows 4GB although addressable memory is still limited to 3GB.
Originally Posted by mduell
Newegg has the same for $60 ($40 for 2GB and $20 for 1GB).
(
Last edited by legacyb4; Dec 29, 2007 at 03:37 PM.
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
I checked out the Transcend offer, but decided to go with the Kingston part instead. After rebates (and Kingston limits it to TWO per household rather than one) it's only about $39 each. I'm happy!
Added... I should have mentioned that I'm getting two of these for my iMac; I don't have a MacBook, and my MBP is an older one that only supports 2GB.
(
Last edited by ghporter; Dec 13, 2007 at 02:34 PM.
)
|
Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Oct 2006
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by ghporter
I checked out the Transcend offer, but decided to go with the Kingston part instead. After rebates (and Kingston limits it to TWO per household rather than one) it's only about $39 each. I'm happy!
Added... I should have mentioned that I'm getting two of these for my iMac; I don't have a MacBook, and my MBP is an older one that only supports 2GB.
I think i'm going to go for the same offer with my Macbook. I can't wait!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Rules
|
|
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|